IMPERIAL POLITICS.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2626, 7 October 1909, Page 5

IMPERIAL POLITICS.

THE GENERAL ELECTION

United Press Association—Copyright LONDON, October 5.

Lord Morley, speaking at Manchester, made the first Ministerial reference to the general election, saying that “it might soon be upon us.”

ACTION BY THE KING. (Received October 6, 8.55 p.m) LONDON, October 5. King Edward summoned Mr. Asquith to Balmoral. There are many speculations in the lobby of the House as to the cause of the unexpected command. Directly after Lords Rosebery, Cawdor, and James of Hereford visited the King. Lord Cawdor is credited with favoring the Lords rejecting the Budget, while Lord Lansdowne, it is believed, disapproves of the rejection. King Edward had arranged to return to London on Monday. The House of Commons continued the debate on the liquor licenses schedule. Many members emphasised the hard case of the London publicans. The Irish Nationalists continue to vote with the Opposition, reducing the Government majority to 49. Finally, Mr. Asquith agreed to make the minimum duty for Ireland £5 in areas with a population below 10,000, and £7 10s in the more populous areas. The Nationalists expressed satisfaction. The Government afterwards refused to extend the same privileges to London.

DANGEROUS WEAPONS

It was recently stated in a Home paper that Mr Balfour personally favors, on tactical grounds, the course advised by the “Spectator”—that the Budget should pass. The Unionists would thus avoid the dangerous constitutional issue as between the Lords and the Commons, and the country would, it is calculated, grow weary of the Budget taxes and of the Liberals, and would send the Unionists back to power. If the Lords rejected the Budget that policy might prove a boomerang; if the Budget passed the Liberals would find it a boomerang, i Besides, if the Unionists returned to power in, say, a year’s time, it would be convenient for them to have some new-ly-made Liberal taxes to pick and choose from. That is in brief the argument for the “pass-the-Budget” policy. On the other hand, Mr Chamberlain s message to Mr Balfour’s Birmingham meeting was a direct appeal to the Lords to reject the Budget and tp force a general election at once. This appeal must be taken as having the Tariff Reform section of the Unionists behind it; and as Mr Balfour did not see fit to express dissent from it, his silence has been taken in some quarters as consent. . It is said that the Unionist Leader, m the Lords, Lord Lansdowne, leans, like Mr Balfour, towards a cautious policy. But there is in the Upper House a section which, like the Tariff Reformers, may go solid for rejection. This is composed of those Peers whom Mr Aclana (Financial Secretary to the War Office) described as “wild and uncontrollable, who emerge from their hiding-places onlv on great occasions,” and who “re-o-ard land taxes from so narrow and selfish a standpoint that—even if Mr Balfour and liis people thought it best to let the Finance Bill pass the House of Lords —these Peers would not be willing to obey'Lord Lansdowne and pass the Bill.” . . . ' . , Such extremists might, however, be satisfied with the line of compromise suggested in “The Times”—the “postponement” by the Lords of the Budget until the country has been consulted.